Living on the edge: shackies and campers

The different perspectives in regards to campers and “shackies” near the Ningaloo Reef, presented by Four Corners: Seachange are very insightful. I can empathise with the different parties and their point of views, as each made a valid point. The Aboriginal people believe they belong to the land, not vice versa, hence they practice taking only what they need, which is in sync with conservation ethics. And then we have the visitors– most likely regulars who've been “paying their pilgrimage” to the reef since they were little– the innocent Australian “cheap beach holiday”, for many generations. However, vehicle access, water usage, and sewage have to be “managed”. This is when the Conservation and Land Management comes into the picture. Hence, the pilot of the eco-tourism plan. But $400 per day for an eco-friendly resort?! I can understand why people would opt for the B.Y.O accommodations. And when the government mentioned “marina resort development” near Ningaloo, it wasn't a big hit with the people because most people, including me, associate Australian resorts with luxury and therefore pricey. I guess in the defence of the eco-tourist operator – as mentioned in the video– the cost of the “rooms” are justified by the cost of renewable energy usage, sewerage treatment, water supply and miscellaneous maintenance costs. But visitors of the reef would steer away from these eco-friendly accommodations knowing that the high costing upkeep would filter through to them. Catch 22. 

Restrictions need to be implemented to save the Ningaloo Reef from ourselves. Imagine– if the reef is not environmentally sustained, what sort of “inheritance” are we leaving our children and their children? So as to the question of whose coast it is and who's entitled to a place there? I say the coast belongs to all Australians and we are entitled to a place there but that doesn't mean we know and are doing what's best for it. That's why I'm leaving the land conservation part to the experts.